Eligibility of Numetal & AM India for Essar Steel Resolution Plan

The judgment focused on the eligibility of 'Numetal Ltd.' and 'AM India Ltd.' to submit resolution plans for 'Essar Steel India Ltd.' under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 'Numetal Ltd.' was found ineligible due to its association with an ineligible person, while 'AM India Ltd.' was deemed ineligible despite divesting its shareholding in certain non-performing assets. The Adjudicating Authority directed the Committee of Creditors to revisit their decisions in compliance with the legal framework, emphasizing procedural fairness and transparency in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The judgment also clarified the interpretation of "persons acting in concert" and excluded the appeal period from the CIRP timeline.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Resolution Applicants under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code).
2. Compliance with the procedures under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code.
3. Validity of the Committee of Creditors' (CoC) decisions.
4. Interpretation and application of the term "person acting in concert."
5. Impact of shareholding changes on eligibility.
6. Compliance with international sanctions and their impact on eligibility.
7. Procedural fairness and transparency in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Resolution Applicants under Section 29A of the I&B Code:
The judgment primarily revolves around the eligibility of 'Numetal Ltd.' and 'ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd.' (AM India Ltd.) to submit resolution plans for 'Essar Steel India Ltd.' under Section 29A of the I&B Code. Section 29A disqualifies certain persons from submitting resolution plans if they have connections to non-performing assets (NPAs), are wilful defaulters, or have been convicted for offenses punishable with imprisonment, among other criteria.

Numetal Ltd.: The Resolution Professional (RP) found 'Numetal Ltd.' ineligible due to its association with 'Aurora Enterprises Ltd.' (AEL), which was controlled by Mr. Rewant Ruia, the son of Mr. Ravi Ruia, a promoter of 'Essar Steel India Ltd.'. The RP concluded that 'Numetal Ltd.' was acting in concert with an ineligible person under Section 29A.

AM India Ltd.: The RP found 'AM India Ltd.' ineligible due to its connections with 'Uttam Galva' and 'KSS Petron,' both of which were NPAs. 'AM India Ltd.' had divested its shareholding in these companies just before submitting the resolution plan, but the RP and the Adjudicating Authority held that this divestment did not remove the ineligibility under Section 29A.

2. Compliance with Procedures under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code:
The Adjudicating Authority found that the CoC had not followed the procedures under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code while evaluating the resolution plans. The CoC was directed to revisit and reconsider their decisions in light of the proviso to Section 29A(c) and Section 30(4) of the I&B Code.

3. Validity of the CoC's Decisions:
The CoC initially found both 'Numetal Ltd.' and 'AM India Ltd.' ineligible. However, the CoC later decided to invite fresh resolution plans from the same entities and 'Vedanta.' The judgment highlights procedural lapses and the need for the CoC to adhere to the legal framework while making such decisions.

4. Interpretation and Application of the Term "Person Acting in Concert":
The term "person acting in concert" was crucial in determining the eligibility of 'Numetal Ltd.' and 'AM India Ltd.'. The judgment relied on the definition provided in Regulation 2(1)(q) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011. It was held that 'AEL,' controlled by Mr. Rewant Ruia, was acting in concert with 'Numetal Ltd.' and thus rendered 'Numetal Ltd.' ineligible.

5. Impact of Shareholding Changes on Eligibility:
The judgment examined the impact of shareholding changes on the eligibility of the resolution applicants. 'Numetal Ltd.' changed its shareholding structure before submitting its second resolution plan, which made it eligible under Section 29A. However, 'AM India Ltd.' was found ineligible despite divesting its shareholding in 'Uttam Galva' and 'KSS Petron' before submitting the resolution plan.

6. Compliance with International Sanctions and Their Impact on Eligibility:
The judgment addressed the argument that 'VTB Bank,' a shareholder in 'Numetal Ltd.,' was subject to international sanctions, which could impact its eligibility. However, no concrete evidence or order was presented to support this claim, and it was rejected.

7. Procedural Fairness and Transparency in the CIRP:
The judgment emphasized the need for procedural fairness and transparency in the CIRP. It directed the CoC to consider the resolution plans submitted by 'Numetal Ltd.' and 'AM India Ltd.' after ensuring compliance with the legal provisions. The CoC was also instructed to negotiate with the resolution applicants if necessary and take an early decision.

Conclusion:
The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the eligibility criteria under Section 29A of the I&B Code, the procedural requirements under Section 30(4), and the interpretation of "persons acting in concert." It highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in the CIRP and directed the CoC to reconsider the resolution plans submitted by 'Numetal Ltd.' and 'AM India Ltd.' after ensuring compliance with the legal framework. The judgment also excluded the period of appeal from the total period of 270 days for the CIRP.

---